Pakistan: Islamophobes force 20 Shi'ites off buses and murder them -- no, wait...

and the iranians shais are obssesed with sunnis.
M

"I hope the bus is alright."

Bwaahaaahahahahahahaha!!!!

The shias pretty much ignore all atrocities committed by the sunis. They do however blame the Joos and the great Satans for these. Perhaps they think the Joos are making the sunnis attack the shias.

hi deidude! they actually do not ignore it. the iranian media is full of stories on daily basis how cruel the sunnis are. at the same time the iraninan government is killing its own people. the iranian government treat the iranian sunni like a piece of shit and persecute them. the sunnis do it to the shias. the shais kill the bahai, the sunnis kill ahmadis and the alawites kill the sunnis and so on... this is been going on for centureis. Islam in any form of it does not respect minorities. so Pakistan is mainly sunni and they kill the minority shias. Iran is mostly shias and they kill the minotrrity sunnis and then they all kill christains and the jews. killing christains and the jews is about the thing they have in common.
M

That is quite true, however all the vitriol and hate is directed at Isreal. They are not threatening pakistan or Iraq or sauds for killing shias and burning down their mosques.

I think the shias have this huge inferiority complex and to conquer it they are making themselves more Palestinian than Palestinian, and more Muslim than Muslims, and what better to rid themselves of this complex than to destroy Israel and all Jews with the help of their evil Santa, the mehadi. After this the muslims of the world will bow to the shias, they will welcome them in all countries, sunnis, sufi and all other sects will end.

Well that seems to be their dreams or sick fantasies.

Hydrogen peroxide directly on the stain, then rinse with water and wash as usual.

Blood stains come right out of white garments, but the blood should still be "fresh". It MAY still work on set-in blood stains, but the garment should be white to begin with (may discolor colored fabrics).

"Left to their own devices, Muslims might just wipe themselves out."

So far, these attacks are just pin-pricks. The Moslem population is growing at the rate of over 20 million/year, just by natural increase. To make a dent in that number, they'll need to step up the violence by a couple of notches. Now that may happen once shiiite Iran gets its A-bomb, and decides to use it on the sunnis. Of course the sunni Pakistani already have the bomb and could retaliate. And if they don't, the sunni Saudis reportedly own a few of the Pakistani bombs and may decide to do their own retaliation.

"Left to their own devices, Muslims might just wipe themselves out."

No such luck, I'm afraid. The only way to ensure that would be to quarantine all of them on a land mass. Antarctica would be nice. We could see whether the cold kills them before they kill and eat each other.

No, their combined thermal mass would too drastically alter the planetary climate. Plus, it would be too difficult to dispose of all those bodies, which the cold would preserve.

But I like the way you think. Perhaps spread them out over the deserts of the world? Carrion-eating birds would help take care of the refuse.

I didn't think of that -- 1.3 billion bodies seething with hate could literally melt the polar cap.

Actually, in the old days, prior to the dissemination of modern medicine and large-scale economic aid and/ or oil money, Mohammedan populations - along with populations of non-Muslims dominated and exploited by Muslims - if cut off from external resources by determined resistance from the non-Muslims next door - tended to collapse. Because Mohammedan misrule, over time, causes *total ecological and agricultural* collapse.

In James Parkes' account of the history of eretz Israel (in which he focuses on the period 135 AD on up until the rebirth of the modern Jewish state of Israel), he includes the fascinating information that during the period when the Mamluks dominated in the Middle/ Near East, the population of the region under their control is guesstimated to have dropped **by TWO-THIRDS**. Now remember that their territory included the riotously fertile Nile delta...and yet, the numbers of peasants and townspeople simply went down, and down, and down, because of the ceaseless feuding and raiding and internecine warfare.

Parkes argues that there were fewer people living within eretz Israel, in the 18th and 19th centuries, than there had been at the time of Christ. He describes internecine warfare causing destruction of the means of life, right down at village level: rival villages destroying each other's crops, pulling up trees, filling in or poisoning wells, sowing salt...doing sometimes irreparable damage to *the means of supporting life*. Laying waste... Infant mortality rates were through the roof such that the population was *not* increasing despite the typical sky-high Muslim *birth* rates; the Arab/ Muslim population only began to *grow* (both by immigration and by improved infant *survivals*) when the returning Jews a/ began to heal the land, making more food available to everybody and b/ introduced such things as cleaner water and improved health care.

I remember reading, in a report from a Christian NGO that had contacts inside Afghanistan, that on one occasion during the Taliban era, in order to punish a community who had been insufficiently willing to toe the Taliban line, the Taliban despatched parties of men *just before harvest*. Their mission: to destroy the orchards belonging to that community; to **cut down fruit trees laden with fruit* and *destroy the lot*. The fruit was not 'looted' and eaten or sold; it was burned with the trees, or left to rot. Now reflect on how rare it would be, in ferocious territory like Afghanistan, to have an extensive orchard; how much work, perhaps over generations, those trees represented. And think of the absolute blind malevolence and STUPIDITY involved in destroying the trees...in such a desert land. Suicidal doesn't even begin to describe it.

I recall hearing somewhere, but cannot give the source, that Islam produces slums, surrounded by deserts. To know what those slums are like, read John Roy Carlson 'Cairo to Damascus', chapter 6, 'behind the correspondent's curtain', section entitled 'the slums of Cairo'.

Melvin wrote:

Scarcity is the root of violence; a few crumbs must be thrown to the weak or they will rebel. Violence will continue until all know their feeding order in life’s jungle. When a benevolent president is feely chosen, he will make sure that even the disabled have a roof over their heads and the means to survive.
.........................................

I'm sorry, Melvin—with all respect, this is simply not true.

Osama bin Laden was the son of a wealthy construction magnate; the Nigerian Christmas Day "panty bomber" was likewise the son of a wealthy and influential man; the Times Square bomber was quite well off, the Ft. Hood Jihad killer held the rank of major.

There are many other examples. Very often the most violent Jihadists are anything but the poorest people.

Violent Jihad is all about ideology—not about poverty.

One of the biggest exporters of Jihad terror is Saudi Arabia, which is bloated with oil wealth.

Poor nations that are non-Islamic do not wage Jihad. Namibia is not waging Jihad, Laos is not waging Jihad, Haiti is not waging Jihad.

Also, it is the nations of the West that—however imperfectly—take the best care of the disabled and needy, both at home and abroad.

In addition, do you really believe that the imposition of Shari'ah—which is what Jihad is for—is about addressing material inequality?

*Nothing* could be further from the truth. The stagnant economies of the Mahgreb have become *much worse* in the wake of the "Arab Spring". For example, Egypt's important tourist industry has been all but completely destroyed by the "Islamists".

Far from developing equality, Shari'ah fosters the most extreme inequality and exploitation—including, quite literally, the practice of *slavery*.

It is a common canard that all issues boil down to the economic, but it is simply frequently not the case—especially when it comes to Islam.

"Mohammedan misrule, over time, causes *total ecological and agricultural* collapse."

Indeed. Baron Bodissey has written a masterful exopsition of this anti-civilizational tendency of Islam in his extensive review of a new book, Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy, by Emmet Scott.

In his review, Bodissey, weaving in copious quotes from Scott's book, demonstrates how Muslims effectively, over the early period of their history of depredatory expansion, ruined the Mediterranean and all the regions around it which it controlled -- the Middle East, Asia Minor, North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula -- ruined not merely politically and socially, not only architecturally and culturally, but also geologically, through decades, then generations, eventually centuries of wasteful, indolently destructive anti-agriculture.

Scott's book is based on the pioneering work of the Belgian historian Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne, who theorized that Muslims were the main cause of the fall of the Roman Empire (for the Empire continued in Christian form after the 4th century). Pirenne had one vivid phrase that put his thesis in a nutshell: he wrote (to paraphrase), that Muslims turned the Mediterranean -- what had been for centuries, even millennia, a healthy vibrant conduit for cross-cultural exchange and ecumenic economies (not, of course, without the usual warfare now and then that plagues all human history) -- into a hostile wall.

Luckily, the spirit of the Roman Empire lived on and formed the nucleus of the post-Roman West, which went on for the following millennium -- a full thousand years clear up to the battle to defend Vienna in 1683 -- to defend the West from Muslims ceaselessly attacking her and trying to conquer her. We can also say that the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 was a major turning point in the Western recovery of the Mediterranean, and that Western Colonialism was the re-establishment of that healthy conduit of cross-cultural exchange, maintained by quite a few battles against Muslims (though the Muslims would continue to try to ruin that with their perennial piracy, finally pretty much stopped by the new U.S.A. in the early 19th century with a coalition of European allies).